Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
It would make my day if the unused grey I-don't-need-you default shader window stopped opening up every time I switched back to the shader room! Not asking for too much I don't think.
P.S. Native dynamic clothing simulation would be nice too.
Yeah, that whole default shader thing is just an annoyance for me. Too often I make changes on the default shader, thinking it's the shader I *think* I'm working on, and then find out later it was the wrong one. I've never really figured out the need for it.
Oh, and the other thing...when I have a new object from the modeller, the only way to apply a new master shader is to scroll all the way down on that dropdown menu. And with a big scene that dropdown can be 2.3 miles long. Geez, just have a "new master shader" button with a space for a name that you can type in....
Carrara...what can I say. So much to love, but there's a good bit to hate as well.
Some tools in Carrara are brilliantly displayed in the interface. 3D Painting for instance, is very well done except for the fact that adding new maps is extremely odd. The tree/plant editor is another example of tools laid out extremely well. Another example is the GI tools. What each of these three interfaces have in common is that the options are all listed neatly and organized on a single panel, the relevant controls are not dispersed about the application and there is no need to constantly switch screens and search through drop down menus. As a complete idiot and newbie to Carrara, I've had no problems navigating any of those features. I feel more confident using Carrara's GI than I do trying to set up a simple camera shot. I will go farther with this description.
Cameras
1. I hate the whole idea of the production frame. I know that die hard Carrara users have gotten used to it and probably think it a "necessary" feature but I am certain that it is not because I don't see this in other much more advanced software packages. It is just one more area where Carrara adds an extra level of confusion to a system that could be simpler. I do not think it wise for them to remove the feature now that it exists, but it points to an example of added complication for a tool that should be super simple.
2. I hate that you can only save 10 camera positions. The camera positions do not retain zoom nor production frame settings. What use is the position alone?
3. Generally its safe to say that I hate everything about the way cameras are handled in Carrara interface-wise. ALL of the camera tools should be in one place, most likely in the Instance listing or at the top left, but not both places. To make myself clear...If I wanted to alter the zoom of a camera I would have to select it from the Instance list and edit the zoom options there. However, if I wanted to simply alter which shot the camera was viewing, Id have to select the camera from the top left and choose a shot I'd previously saved from a drop down list that is again hidden at first. If I also wanted to alter the Production frame for that camera I'd need to access the "View" options along the top of the screen. That's three different areas I need to be familiar with just to utilize a single darned camera. No wonder so many people say they cannot get a single render out of Carrara when they first try using it. All of the camera options should be in the same place not scattered about. The tools themselves are not the problem, it is the way the interface makes you click and scroll to do things that should be available without clicks and scrolls.
Modeling Room
This space needs a total redesign from top to bottom. Here is what we need.
1. Right now the three editors are separated Vertex/ Animation/ UV mapping. You can only be in one of those editors at a time. One of Carrara's most clever features is that it will allow you to select polygons based on the UV map locations which I find incredible to say the least. But...If I select an area of faces or vertexes in the UV mapping mode, I cannot directly access options such as "Fill Polygon" because the options in the Model dropdown are greyed out when you are in UV editing mode. In order to enable the Fill Polygon option I have to click back to the Vertex mode while maintaining the selection I made in the UV mapping mode, then I'll also have to again scroll over to the Model drop down menu in order to reach the now activated Fill polygon option. After I fill those polygons I then have to go back to the UV mode, select another set of faces, then exit and go back go vertex mode in order to again seek the dropdown to reach the fill polygon option. SOOO BAAAAD!!!!! This should not be. Why are those modeling tools hidden inside of drop down in the first place? And why are those drop down options greyed out unless you are in the vertex mode? Why the need for those "modes" in the first place? Why not have the UV map be just another tab next to animation and vertex, with the Modeling options always available on a single panel? Or another way to put it, every single tool that is hidden in a drop down menu needs to be exposed from the start. Every single mouse click between tools needs to be carefully evaluated. If I have to click and scroll just to extrude a single polygon face, that's a problem.
Maybe I'm spoiled by Truespace, but what that application did was it removed the idea of hidden options and added mouse clicks...everything was icon based. Learning the icons was the real challenge, but access was indeed much more ready than it is in Carrara. It also has about 3,000 more modeling tools than Carrara, again, because these features took almost no real estate on the interface. I know that Carrara is not a detailed modeler like Truespace was, nor do I think Carrara should be the next Truespace ( the application is dead so this analogy can only go but so far). Still, there are some lessons we might learn about removing mouse clicks and hidden menu options.
Render Room
Why is it that the document size and output parameters are in the Render Room, but the camera production frame tools are in the Assembly room? Do you see how this scattered parameters issue can really be a problem for new users?
Atmospheres
It took me a lot of trial and error to figure this one out I'm ashamed to say. Apparently, Sky and Realistic Sky work very differently. Why is this? Example. I did not realize until yesterday that when you select Sky as your atmosphere, it already includes a "Sun." This "Sun" is only editable from within the Sky parameter, there is no Sun object counterpart listed with the Instances. And to boot, when I am editing the Sun in the Sky editor I find that I cannot disable it. What? But then it seems that Realistic Sky works differently. With that one you don't have any sunlight until you insert a "Sun Light" primitive. Also confusing is that the position of the Sun Light can be altered from within the Sky editor, and also by selecting it from the Instance list. You cannot alter the color of the sunlight from within the sky editor, you have to select the sunlight instance to do that. Okay...why the dispersal of controls related to this primitive? Why doesn't "Sky" work the same way as Realistic Sky?
Why why why?????
Rant over. As a semi-familiar member of the community and avid user of all Daz3d softwares I can say that Carrara has much more right than it has wrong, but the wrongs are fundamental wrongs, conceptual wrongs that are imbedded in the way the application thinks and the way the UI is designed.
The UI in Carrara is both its best and worst quality. Sadly, the EXACT same thing is true for Bryce, and it is in my opinion one of the major stumbling blocks for further development. To keep pace applications need so many options now, drop down and scrolls all over the place cannot keep pace. Some smarter way of organizing tools must be established.
Developers are afraid of what new users will think when they see a panel full of unknown options...makes them aware of how much they need to learn and that can be daunting,depressing. Fine.I get it. But have you thought about the advanced user who knows what the tools do and is not afraid of a single panel with 35 options on it that are useful and directly relevant to the task at hand. Every single added mouse click is a productivity slowdown That's my opinion.
Ralph Macchio used to be one of the hottest guys in Hollywood, regardless of his ...acting abilities. Hopefully he is doing well.
Rashad,
What is it that annoys you about the production frame? I'm not understanding. It just shows you the camera field of view, right? Yeah, you can grab it and change aspect ratio, but you can also lock it and hide it.
My head is being scratched...
Carrara is confusing because it breaks things up into separate rooms. The entire concept of the production frame is the issue. It is itself unnecessary. Octane for example, doesnt have the production frame ideal, what the camera sees is what the camera sees. But then Octane doesnt have a separate render room. Basically, I set up the camera to view what I want it to see. It seems odd that Carrara basically says "Rashad, I know this is what you have the camera looking at, but are you sure you really want to view this, maybe you want to render less than the camera is actually viewing..." I just want to yell at the screen and say "Dude, whatever you see in the camera is what I want to render, all the way to the darned edge both vertically and horizontally, duh."
You see, the production frame is a new concept to so many people, quite foreign. You've heard a lot of people say they cannot get a render out of Carrara, this is what they are talking about.
In Daz Studio, what the working camera sees is what the engine renders. Period. If you don't like the shot then you alter the position of the working camera. Allowing the engine to render the scene in a way that is different than what the user is viewing in the assembly room is foreign, and I'd argue unnecessary.
So for example, the Production frame asks you if you want to render all the way to the edge. To me this is a silly question. Of course I want it to render to the edge. If there is a tree over on the far left that I don't want in the final render I will move the darned camera so that it no longer views said tree. this is the way every other software package operates. People not familiar with Carrara would see the final render wondering why they cannot see the tree on the far left that they can see the wireframe in the assembly room. They don't realize that the production frame is set to only render 90% of the view visible to the working camera. So the poor new user would need to render the scene out fully, see the results were wrong, scratch their heads, look up several tutorials or venture into the forums to ask a question about cameras they've never had to ask before with any other software.
Basically, if a Production frame was really that necessary then every application would provide it, but they don't.
For those who have learned to think "Carrara," the production frame is perfectly natural. The added step of the production frame doesn't seem like anything extra at this point. But to someone new and fresh, it looks a lot like overkill. It's too late to remove the feature now. But I'd still argue that while it is a nice option, it isnt a reason to use Carrara over other packages, it just doesn't really offer that much added control for the amount of frustration it causes new users.
You do realize that you can set the production frame to exactly the same size as the viewport in the assembly room, and you can also turn to 'safe area' to zero, right? Just drag the corner of the frame until it fills the view. Or you can turn it off altogether.
When I'm taking a photograph with a real camera, it helps me a lot to see the entire scene first with my eyes by looking around, without looking thru the camera lens, to see what I'm working with. Then you can frame your image by looking thru the camera. That's all the production frame is doing. You still see a large portion of the scene, and can manipulate the camera's "Field of View" (aka, production frame) on the fly to crop what image the camera will capture.
To me, it's a lot easier to crop your image on the fly via the production frame than selecting aspect ratios in the Output section.
I haven't checked other apps, but I know Blender has a Field of View indicator for its cameras, and everything outside that is shaded and transparent so you can still see what's outside the FOV.
And BTW, speaking of "safe area" you do realize that it serves a sometimes useful purpose correct? Not all monitors are created equal, especially in TV-tube land, and sometimes they won't display the entire image clearly. So if you have important parts of the image that you want to make sure all monitors will display properly, you make sure it lies inside the "safe area". So it does serve a purpose, though probably decreasingly so as technology improves. But it is a big consideration in the broadcast industry.
And BTW, to make certain the horse is well beaten...
There are standards for safe areas, and you can find a ton of info on them if you're interested. I did a quick search and here's an EBU (European Broadcasting Union) standard from 2008 for 16:9 production:
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r095.pdf
Yeah, probably more than the average Carrara user cares about, but it's a feature nonetheless and can be turned of if annoyed... :)
EDIT: Actually the more I think about it, the more it seems that Safe Areas are more important now, since we have so many widescreen 16:9 aspect monitors alongside the 4:3 monitors. And if you generate stuff to fit beautifully in a 16:9, guaranteed some of it will be clipped when played on a 4:3...which is why you need a safe area in your rendering and editing software. And I think most of the serious editing software has Safe Area capability...
Wow it's like you summed it all up for me, a "seasoned Carrara noob"... Especially these bits...
Because confusing obviously intelligent and seasoned CG users is fun?
Developers are afraid of what new users will think when they see a panel full of unknown options...makes them aware of how much they need to learn and that can be daunting,depressing. Fine.I get it. But have you thought about the advanced user who knows what the tools do and is not afraid of a single panel with 35 options on it that are useful and directly relevant to the task at hand.
Well said. Dev has to be decisive and clear with their target audience. Carrara veterans seem to have lots of free time, index finger muscular prowess, and mental stamina than most. Definitely highly independent and resourceful ( no choice I guess lol) Blender types, basically. But Blender has Cycles IPR.
In today's middleware trend, Carrara still attracts C4D, Poser PRo, Advanced DS, current gen game devs (I saw UE Unity guys gossip about Carrara), and guess what, IClone pipeline sorts. Carrara also attracts people from Blender 3DSmax and Maya or Modo looking for simplified workflow. And of course, ZBrush sorts like me looking for somewhere to animate their mid-poly models.
I'm marking around in IClone 6 right now, yet no deal-breakers in Carrara nor buyer's remorse (which I had for IClone 5). I like Carrar's vegetation tools and dynamic hair. So I will keep coming back to play. But I'm not in love.
And after I got over the dread of the GUI, and camera navigation clumsiness, when I saw the symmetry tool in Carrara I was like...errr...man, that is so last century. Not that I had the word vertex in my lexicon back then.
Regardless, Carrara is still the most hidden gem in my travels. IF it gets a serious UI overhaul. IClone is the leader in UI GUI, but don't panic, time to steal modernising ideas from them!
I must not be understanding what you mean. Are you talking about the preview in the editor, or the Assembly room view?
Also, just in case anyone doesn't know, if you have a sunlight or moonlight in your scene it is tied to the sun and/or moon position in the Realistic Sky Editor (RSE). Obviously you can adjust the position in the RSE, but you can also adjust the position in the assembly room by using the standard manipulators and it will update in the RSE. With the sunlight or moonlight selected in the Assembly room, you can see a wireframe representation of where the sun disk or moon disk is located in the "sky." The moon disk is represented by a crescent shape and the sun by a rayed circle shape.
ohhhh
domo domo domo arigato!
don't know what i want for c9 til i see all c85 haz :)
right-click help context on tools and buttons
a c9 manual as comprehensive as the c7 manual
I must not be understanding what you mean. Are you talking about the preview in the editor, or the Assembly room view?
Also, just in case anyone doesn't know, if you have a sunlight or moonlight in your scene it is tied to the sun and/or moon position in the Realistic Sky Editor (RSE). Obviously you can adjust the position in the RSE, but you can also adjust the position in the assembly room by using the standard manipulators and it will update in the RSE. With the sunlight or moonlight selected in the Assembly room, you can see a wireframe representation of where the sun disk or moon disk is located in the "sky." The moon disk is represented by a crescent shape and the sun by a rayed circle shape.
I set shaders in the texture room all the time. You just create your shader, and then drag and drop it into the shaders folder. If you want to use it, you just drag it back out and drop it in.
Is that what you mean?
No, it's a naming thing...
Let's say you add a new object to the scene. It gets assigned a default shader. Let's say it's named "Default 1". And lets say you don't like that name, you want it to be named "Marble". How do you change the name?
Well, the easiest way, which unfortunately isn't easy, is you look at the list of of Master Shaders in the Sequencer, click on "Default 1", and then you get a dialog where you can change its name to "Marble". Pretty awkward.
And if you want to assign a new master shader, you choose the Shading tab, and click the dropdown, and all of the scene's shaders appear in a list. To assign a new master shader you scroll ALL the way to the bottom, where it says "New Master Shader". And for big scenes that list can be very long.
It's just a pain when all you need to do is assign a new master shader and rename it.
Is there going to be a Carrara 9? There doesn't even seem to be a Carrara page on their website that's easy to find.
It was supposed to be out 3 years ago. And right now they're just working on a beta update to 8.5 which has virtually no new features. And DAZ has given no indication in recent years that a version 9 is coming.
So, I guess it seems fairly unlikely. And also very unfortunate and surprising that DAZ refuses to provide any indications whatsoever.
Unfortunate - Yes!
Surprising - No!
DAZ has rarely communicated any plans regarding Carrara. When they have, their stated plans do not come to fruition and then they
follow that up with, you guessed it - NOTHING!
Truly, this is a sad state of affairs with no indication that anything will change.
And hearing input from some of the PA's in recent years, it seems there are some bad feelings about how DAZ has been handling things with regards to Carrara and PA's, especially with the new leadership. Again, unfortunate. But it doesn't speak well for Carrara's future.
BTW, reminds me of a couple years ago when a PA posted here something to the effect "They (DAZ) hate Carrara !!! I'm getting out of here !!!"
Kind of reminds me of Steve Martin in the movie "The Jerk". He's working at a gas station, and a sniper in the hill across the street is trying to shoot him. But the sniper keeps missing, and instead hits a bunch of motor oil cans in a nearby display.
Martin suddenly realizes somebody is shooting, and decides "He hates these cans !!! Stay away from the cans !!" :) :) :)
Navin Johnson. Not sure why it reminded me of that, but anyway.
As a DAZ PA who has almost exclusively produced stuff for Carrara, all I can say is that is not my personal experience. I have found DAZ to be very helpful.
I don't want to get accused of spreading false negativity, so I'll try to find the posts I was referring to...
But I'm pretty certain it was Fenric who was the "I'm gettin' outta here" PA, and Holly came along to explain her view of some serious deficiencies (in her and possibly Fenric's view) in the PA relationship with DAZ.
I have no personal experience, just going by what my esteemed colleagues have said. It may no longer apply, so I'll defer to others, including Fenric and Holly (if they are still around) to clarify.
I apologize if I was in error.
Okay, found it...here's the link:
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/14017/P225/#215153
And as I recalled, Fenric and Holly were giving their input, which seemed pretty negative. Interestingly, it's from almost exactly 2 years ago.
Take from it what you will, because personally I'm clueless. Just passing on what others have said.
And here's Holly's detailed explanation of her "concerns":
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/14017/P240/#215459
Again, I have no clue if they were/are true, just passing on the info.
It's generally considered "marketing 101" (I have no idea what "101" means, but that's what they call it) that you do not talk about unreleased products until they are ready for release. There's a story usually quoted about a company that made a wonderful product (someone might know the company and the product - I couldn't find it on a quick search). It was brilliant and sold in vast numbers, until the marketing director announced "version 2 is going to be even better!" So everyone decided they wanted version 2, and they stopped buying version 1, cos why would they buy version 1 when version 2 was so much better? Sales dried up, version 2 was never completed and the company went bust.
I suspect it's equally bad practice to announce you are no longer developing something, especially if it's selling well in its current version - that'll equally kill sales.
Well, in the totally useless trivia category, those who have attended college soon learn that they generally number their classes with a 3-digit code to indicate the level in the first number (like freshman, which is 100, sophomore is 200, etc.), and the other digits indicate specifics about the class (like what department and stuff, I think).
So usually the 100 level are the freshman/introductory classes, and 101 is the first class introductory. The introductory of the basics. At least it goes something like that...
True. And maybe they learned their lesson about this when Dan Farr, almost exactly 3 years ago, said that C9 would be release in "a month or two". I'm sure that came back to bite them, so I doubt they will make the same mistake again :) :)
However, IF they are considering actively developing the software, I doubt there is much harm in assuring the community that Carrara is, or will be, actively developed. All that tells users, and prospective users, is that any investment the user makes in Carrara or related products will not be in vain. At least to the best of their present knowledge. Sure, stuff changes, but at least an assurance of intent isn't too risky, IMO.
Which is why the outlooks seems dim. If you want people to hang in there and keep investing in Carrara and related content and products, then why now assure them they shouldn't abandon ship? The ABSENCE of that assurance is what makes the future seem quite dim.
BTW, in a related example of what I'm referring to is when DAZ bought/merged with Gizmoz. And at the time there was a lot of press release hype about DAZ's plans to develop personalized gaming avatars with the technology gained from Gizmoz.
Looks like it never materialized, but such is life. But they absolutely assured customers and investors they were planning on actively developing that technology.
IMO, active development of their existing software is no different.
Maybe that's an American thing - we never had anything like that here. Live and learn :)
Yes I agree the absence of any statement can be equally bad. It's a narrow tightrope betwixt catastrophe and disaster, as they say!
Absolutely a tightrope. One job I would never want is spokesperson for any corporation. You have to be extremely careful what you say so you don't hurt investors or customers or make the company look bad or 25 other things. But you have to say it in a way that people really feel like you're saying something useful, when in fact you're just saying a bunch of platitudes cuz that's all you can say :) :) :)
done.